Why is this model not complete? It's easy to doubt that a model is complete, but we don't have a reason to believe it's incomplete. What behavior does measurements not cover? I have yet to see an actual behavior that has been observed but not modeled.

DBT has been applied to loudspeakers, and differences are clearly heard. Furthermore, differences in loudspeaker measurements, including frequency response, nonlinearities in frequency response, distortion, bass extension, etc. have ALL been shown to correlate with listener preferences in blind listening tests. Consequently, very few people disagree that loudspeakers sound different.

On the other hand, in just about every reliable, published study I have encountered, ther are NO discernable differences heard when DBT's are used to distinguish between cables. Furthermore, differences in the same measurements that we see in loudspeakers, measurements that we KNOW correlate with audible differences, are orders of magnitude smaller in cables.

How come I hear "believers" commonly criticizing the blind-listening methodologies that don't show differences in cables, but NEVER a peep when it comes to blind-testing methods in loudspeakers that DO show differences (big ones)? Hmmmm....

How come I hear "believers" commonly criticizing the blind-listening methodologies that don't show differences in cables, but NEVER a peep when it comes to blind-testing methods in loudspeakers that DO show differences (big ones)? Hmmmm....

You seem to imply that's a self-contradictory stance, but I don't get it. What's contradictory about it?

Look, this should not be hard. I'm a physics major not a sound engineer, but many people here are experts, even professional experts in signal processing and sound processing. The only issue is whether the changes going from cable/power cord A to cable/power cord B cause a change in the signal that can be measured and, if it can be measured is it audible at all. This issue of what some audible change might actually equate to (sound stage, bass response, etc.) to a listener is a distraction from the fundamental and far easier question.

Look simply at power cords, the most unlikely of contributors to changes in music or sound. Does going from one power cord to another introduce a measurable change in any kind of output signal? Don't worry about characterizing or defining what that change equates to. Electronic equipment can at least tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt has a signal changed. A more difficult question is does the change pass into the audible range for human hearing, but that question too can be examined and almost certainly answered (especially given the claims about significant changes to sound I read in the power cord round-up). The experiment gets run enough times to make it statistically relevant and you're off to the races.

I say again, focusing on what in the sound changes and what does that change equate to is not the proper issue, rather it should be does it change at all. And this question can be answered. That has to be the starting point. Step 2 is whether it's in the audible range, but I suspect step 1 would be telling and arguments about subjectivity would be useless for that case. But step 1 needs to be tackled first.

You seem to imply that's a self-contradictory stance, but I don't get it. What's contradictory about it?

Nothing. That fact that a test is capable of discerning large differences says nothing about whether it's capable of discerning smaller differences. If I have an objection to measuring the width of a human hair with a standard ruler, am I being inconsistent if I'm willing to use a ruler to measure the length of my ipod?

It's also interesting to note that the objectivists' argument always seems to return to cables (or power cords). It's somewhat of a straw man, at least from my perspective. It troubles me somewhat (in terms of acceptance of DBT's without question) that different DAC's and CD players seem to measure the same (at least in terms of what is allegedly audible), and there don't seem to be a lot of DBT's establishing DAC's and CD players sound the same, and yet a lot of people seem to hear differences (or claim they do). In addition, it is not as readily argued that people are loony tunes if they claim to hear differences between DAC's or CD players (like they are loony tunes if they hear differences with cables). In addition, I am convinced, based on my own listening experiences, over lengthy periods of time, that the differences between certain DAC's that seem to have similar relevant measurements are clearly audible. Cables (including power cords), to me, is really a more difficult issue, although I do have an opinion (with some reservations) based on my own listening experience.

You seem to imply that's a self-contradictory stance, but I don't get it. What's contradictory about it?

i.e. Believers seem to declare that DBT's are invalid when they don't show that cables make a difference, but they have no problem accepting DBT's as valid when they show that loudspeakers make a difference. Believers only accept a scientific test when it supports their "belief." If it doesn't, the scientific test must be invalid. Fascinating.

Look, this should not be hard. I'm a physics major not a sound engineer, but many people here are experts, even professional experts in signal processing and sound processing. The only issue is whether the changes going from cable/power cord A to cable/power cord B cause a change in the signal that can be measured and, if it can be measured is it audible at all.

Believers believe that two cables can have virtually identical frequency response, phase, and distortion characteristics, yet sound completely different. When pressed, they will tell you that the differences cannot be explained by anything we measure. They are satisfied with that explanation.

i.e. Believers seem to declare that DBT's are invalid when they don't show that cables make a difference, but they have no problem accepting DBT's as valid when they show that loudspeakers make a difference.

I've never met anyone who follows that line of reasoning. Certainly no one on this forum, the very forum to which you are addressing your comments, the very forum which, if actually read and comprehended by you, would reveal that no one follows that line of reasoning.

Quote:

Believers only accept a scientific test when it supports their "belief." If it doesn't, the scientific test must be invalid. Fascinating.

This is, of course, a strawman. I'm glad you are fascinated by your strawmen.

I've never met anyone who follows that line of reasoning. Certainly no one on this forum, the very forum to which you are addressing your comments, the very forum which, if actually read and comprehended by you, would reveal that no one follows that line of reasoning.

Perhaps I am mistaken. Who here has criticized the validity of blind cable testing and ALSO criticized the validity of blind testing LOUDSPEAKERS, the results of which clearly show audible differences?

Let me put it this way. You measure an amp using any measurements you like. Then I'll hand you an arbitrary input signal. Using your measurements, predict the output of the amp. If you can do that for any input signal, and prove mathematically you can do that for any input signal, then you have a complete model.

Yeah, but what I'm getting at is that the model is only incomplete in some theoretical hypothetical sense. It's about as useful as saying a spectrometer is useless for determining a visible color because it cannot measure into the microwave range. In the practical, useful aspect of a complete model, it serves all of our purposes. I'll ask again - how exactly is the model lacking in determining whether or not two objects sound audibly identical?

I guess the measurements. It's just kind of silly to call measurements models of a world when a measurement is by definition a set of rules that a phenomenon follows. You seem to be thinking that phenomena are forced into models that don't represent reality, when in fact the phenomena itself is what dictates the models (measurements).